Richard Brodsky: How — and why — to admit when the president is right

For most of us the outbursts, insults and lies that are our daily portion under President Donald Trump are all we can process. All of his foes, and many of his friends, spend their time dissecting the varying levels of loathsomeness foisted upon us.

Unsurprisingly, this has now impaired our judgment. More and more often, many of us cannot figure out how to respond when Trump may actually be correct.

Take three specifics: Trump seeks continued negotiations with Iran and North Korea; Trump fires John Bolton; Trump identifies Chinese trade policy as a fundamental problem. I think he's probably got all three right.

Negotiating our differences with our adversaries is a good thing. Many of us like the idea of an American president persisting in efforts to talk with the leaders of North Korea and Iran as the best way to resolve the two dangerous standoffs. If Barack Obama was doing this we would be applauding his courage and instincts.

Many of us deplored former National Security Adviser John Bolton's readiness to use military force before other strategies were exhausted. The regular use of the tools of war, usually without congressional approval, is dangerous to us and the world. His departure last week is a good thing.

Many of us now agree that Chinese trade policy is unfair and damaging to our economic and political interests. Free trade has to be free both ways. America needs to change Chinese behavior.

Right on, Donald? Not so much. Rather than publicly supporting him, most politicians have changed the subject. The focus has been on the various reservations about Trump's tactics, his willingness to take bad deals if they have a political benefit, and his mishandling of the ups and downs of each conflict. Those are valid concerns, but on the basic merits of the issues I think he's probably right.

How to respond? Other than George Soros, who praised Trump's China trade policy, there has been an awkward silence on the left, especially from the crowd of Democratic presidential candidates. That can't be sustained. The dynamic of any campaign will inexorably force Democrats to declare themselves.

Politics teaches us to avoid praising our opponents. There's a downside to the truth. Imagine the TV ad that Trump could produce of Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden endorsing Trump's China policy.

There remains a pathway across this minefield, but it's narrow. Essentially it's telling the truth. Democrats can and have to acknowledge that Trump has correctly identified certain problems, but can't be trusted to resolve them. In this they will be helped by Trump himself, who cannot stop saying stupid and untrue things. But it's past time to figure out how to be fair and rational even to a president who is neither.

The electoral consequences of this decision are considerable. Campaigns are not exercises in rationality. Voters don't always respond to sensible and polite argument. Trump is astoundingly polarizing, and an admission that he may be right could backfire with an energized anti-Trump base.

That's why politics is an art, not a science. The candidate who figures out how to deal with the Trump phenomenon can prevail, but will have to surmount obstacles of an unusual and daunting kind.